paradoxfandomcom-20200223-history
Philosophy log 8-23-07
They think it is meaningless or 'fluff'. The perception of quite prevalent. philosophy is pre-science You mean it's not?:) Often times these people have the impression that anything that is actually worth asking is answered by sciences and nothing that philosophy does is meaningful. The charge is that, 'Philosophy never accomplishes anything'. philosophy gives us the opportunity to tell the truth about our lives. or try to. * seanw runs. hehe people who think that either haven't experienced philosophy or they have. people who think that philosophy is a waste of time... comments like 'people either think that or they don't' probably lend themselves to the criticism. they don't have a sense of humor, I guess. I basically agree that the people who are most vocal in their disdain for philosophy don't seem to have very much contact with real philosophy or the philosophical state-of-mind. besides, philosophy is good as long as people don't come to my door with tracts to hand out. When people say philosophy they could several different things in mind. In fact, a lot of topics probably go unexplored because of "contempt prior to investigation." They could be thinking of the philosophical method, the philosophical disposition, some particular manifesto, or questions like, 'if a tree falls in the woods..' and they would all be right, I think. Philosophy covers a lot of material, I think. I think most people who have little contact with philosophy think of manifestos or cliches first. It's like God. Most people assume you're talking about the Christian God and not a personal one. I don't notice a lot of contemporary philosophers writing tomes like Kant or Hegel anymore. Is that a false impression or, if it's true what explains it? I don't know. I'm not well-versed in philosophy. It might be because it's become too specialized or particular. Or there's just so many philosophers. sometimes standing on the shoulders of giants gets you into an altitude that causes nosebleeds. It's kind of like mathematics. Not many mathematicians seem inclined to criticize the foundations. I dont think most working mathematicians think about the foundations at all. :) yeah. it's a little pathetic. I'm new to the study myself. I wouldn't say it is pathetic. I think it is sort of irrelevant to what they are actually doing. It might be sort of like saying that a person trying to build a better transistor should first master particle physics. I guess I agree. It's just that there are so many important issues.... Do you think that philosophy can be the same way? one can muse without having read Nietche or Hegel? Absolutely. I would even say, I think that philosophy is more accessible in that sense than maybe any other subject. that's what I like about it. To build a better transistor there are things you have to master. Just maybe not cosmology. To talk about chemistry very seriously maybe a person needs 4 years of preparation before entering the conversation. Philosophy might be the one area where any person can jump in at any level and be serious about it. I wish I could absorb all the writings of the philosophers. There's just so much! I can't. I must remain a lay person. I'm glad you feel that way. As philosophy goes, I feel woefully undereducated I'm pleased that the field is open to everyone, if only on this channel. Well I think I can distinguish at least three different aspects of philosophy: (1) The philosophical personality. (2) The philosophical method. (3) The facts about what other philosophers have said. I'm curious abot the philosophical method. Does it involve axiomatization? (1) Is embodied by Socrates. It is not easy to teach. I think maybe the best way to learn it is to know someone who has it and hang around with them for a while. I think there are plenty of philosophy majors or even philosophy Phds who have mastered (2) or certainly (3) but never had the first contact with (1). I can see axiomatizing statements as part of it. I have something slightly more broad than that in mind though. I learned most of what I know about important stuff from a particular teacher who offered statements to think about. but it wasn't based on abstraction. Yeah, so not knowing you personally it sounds like maybe you have had a taste of (1). In my opinion (1) is the most important. :) the experience I had with him over a period of years transformed me completely. It probably saved my life. Have you ever read "Apology" by Plato? I ask questions about philosophy because I'm so interested in the people I ask. no. I love hearing what other people hold precious to themselves, what's important to their lives. I really recommend that you do. I think it is maybe the best starting point for all of philosophy. It is written as a dialog showing Socrates when he was on trial. okay. Do you find a more tolerant temperment among philosophers than among the general population or less or the same? I don't think there is a better model of what I'm calling the "philosophical personality" than Socrates. So the "Apology" is maybe the most important work of philosophy to read. I think that depends on if their emphasis is on (1), (2), or (3). A lot of contemporary philosophers are maybe a bit competitive with each other. Some people seem to have their ego at stake more than an interest in the truth. That is contrary to (1). Do you believe that if you have (1) then the rest can follow? I think there is a lot of diversity in temperment amongst philosophers. If you have (1), (2) can come more easily. (3) does not follow except by actually reading of course. But with (1), I think, you stand a much better chance of actually understanding (3). ah. I'll see if I can hunt up a copy of "Apology" if I can. I so prefer to own the books I read. You can probably find it at any book store. It is not very long. It should probably be less than 5 dollars. are there any other works you would recommend as a foundation (before entering a particular school of thought). ??? Anything by Plato is probably good but in my opinion, "Apology" and "The Republic" have to be read. Is there a pre-Greek philosophy? I mean, where did it start or even come from? or is that where philosophy separated from religion? There is pre-socratic philosphy. who? like Zeno? or pre-Greek? But it's fragmented and, yes, I would say maybe not as distinct from religion in some cases. I'm not very familiar with any pre-greek philosophy. There are pre-socratic philosophers like heraclitus of ephesus, parmendies, democritus, pythagorous and so on. They seem to be remembered for one 'key idea' more than a system of thought or a way of thinking. My main interest is paradoxes, btw. But that is probably partly because not so much of what they wrote is available. I like trying to take them apart and seeing what makes them tick. Well then you might have a knack for (2). (2) is characterized by the search for such puzzles. I think. I love them. I love finding contradictions that make sense. Yeah. (2) is the philosophical method. As I see it, the philosophical method works like this: (a) You assert something that seems to be true. (something you believe). (b) You begin to deduce consequences from that assertion (this is where abstraction can be useful). © You test each consequence against other things that seem to be true (our intuitions). If after this process you never find a contradiction between what you originally asserted and everything else we think is true, then you may have a strong belief. But that's not the most exciting outcome. The exciting part is when you deduce a consequence that contradicts something else we think is true. Now you have a puzzle. This is my only interest in foundations of mathematics - finding the contradictions. You have to either give up what you asserted, or give up something else you thought was true. One thing I feel strongly about is that for some differences one must throw out the Law of the Excluded Middle For spiritual matters. In either case you have to give up something you thought was true and that can be exhilerating for some people and frustrating for others. You have to be careful what you begin with and what "truths" you assume. Then you might want to read about the constructivist school of mathematical philosophy. They reject the law of the excluded middle. It makes doing math much more baroque though. yes. it's been suggested. There's so much to read!!! So little time. We aren't going to get more time so the best thing to do is probably to start with anything. Oh, the process is already underway. But I'm planning on finding the Plato work. I hope you will. It must be something that every one who is interested in philosophy at all has to read. Thanks for all your help. Do you mind if I copy this conversation to the paradox wiki? It should probably be read multiple times. :) Do you mind? What is it? Above, I said thanks for your help and asked if you minded if I copied this conversation onto the paradox website (wiki) Okay sure why not. I retain all rights to my thoughts to be used in any future manner that I can imagine at future dates. :) Thanks. It's not exactly paradox stuff, but I give myself latitude in what I include in the site. I see. Do you know the paradox about induction and black ravens? As I remember it, the problem was that no-black things were non-ravens. *non-black But the argument stood also from the other way round. Knowing that a raven is black gives no insight into the color of an apple. Yeah that's it. I eat that stuff up! It's great. Another thing that anyone really has to read is "Meditations on First Philosophy" by Descartes. He is considered the beginning of modern philosophy. Okay. I have to go have some breakfast and stuff. thanks for the great talk! I guess if a person could only read 4 works of philosophy I would insist that they read, "Apology" by Plato, "The Republic" by Plato, "Meditations on First Philosophy" by Rene Descartes, and "Nichomachean Ethics" by Aristotle. category:Discussions